once more an ill thought out question, and the limitless cynicism of the military mind gets me a shouting at. I'll try again... and I really apologise to you who have wasted your time reading the above mentions and i'll admit I should really have added the news story into the link (i've lost the damnable thing now) and not taken the info at quite such face value (note to self, stop trusting journo's). So, i'll try re-write to get an answer I was origionally looking for.


Which is the most capable airframe?

NOT could it be done, not which is more expensive, not any of the prblems i've been listed.

Which, the JSF, or the EF, if flown as part of the carrier air wing, would be the more capable airframe for ground attack, and defending the airspace?

Someone is bound to say its acedemic, and it'll never happen so there's not point speculating, but, well, humour me, i'm only young lol

Yeoman Dai
 

Thank you for your admiration.:O
But no Typhoon has been fitted for, or tested fully on a carrier so I stand by what I say.
If you consider that even differing flying clothing has to be tested to ensure it's safe to use in the cockpit, then an aircraft re-made in different alloys and a differing construction, is a whole new ball game (literally)

Do you have a reference to the testing that BAE have done?. I'm sorry to be old fashioned here, but on paper the 400M looks a top aircraft, but just does not quite live up to it's computer performance in real life.

(Beags I'm sure it will be great one day, but I am thinking more of how the floor worked on a PC screen more robustly than on the finished article:rolleyes:)

To my microsopic knowledge, no Europhoon has ever had hardware for deck operations tried, though I'm sure BAe will have tried simulated projections.

About the best thing out of a conventional rather than STOVL design seems to be AEW, though that doesn't seem an insurmountable snag.

If really wishing to save money, how about warmed-over Harrier 2+ , some with buddy tanks...? They carry AMRAAMS, Sniper etc, and not many potential enemies can leg it past those !

Harrier 2+ & V-22 seems a good bet ( so won't happen ).

There was a good post on the other thread which summarised as:
If you want a 5th generation fighter - it's the JSF, if you want a 4.5th gen - then you have choices.

Rafale M or Super Hornet off the shelf are the quick answers ( and the Rafale is stunning).

Britain considers £9bn JSF project pullout - Times Online this is one of them, i'll endevour to locate the other one, it's on a mil news page somewhere, I just can't remember exactly where :O :\

i'm aghast, that last post was almost an actual answer!!! gosh! ;)

Damn my eyes Yeoman Dai - you're right.

I'll start altering it now:eek:

Capable at what?

At air to air combat? At air to ground? At range carrying what ordnance? At penetrating heavily defended airspace?

A navalized Typhoon would have to be greatly redesigned, so you can't take assume that its performance would mirror the current Typhoon.

Your question simply can't be answered.

There was an assessment a while back with kill ratios - how many bandits you could kill for the loss of your jet. I can't remember the absolute figures but the F22 was way ahead. The Typhoon was something like 5:1, the Rafael was, IIRC but I stand to be corrected, 1.6:1.

No match really. The study which was recent did not, again IIRC, include JSF but if it had it would presumably be like including Harrier in the fight evaluation.

There is the other old saw, you can make a bomber out of a fighter but not a fighter out of a bomber - Hurricane, Mosquito, Hunter, F3. You might suggest that the FA2 disproves that theory or that the FA2 was really a different design from a Harrier GR.

From a very reliable source -

A section had a toilet seat fitted. Instead of just getting one from B&Q and fitting it which would have cost £20 let's say, they had to have surveyors, health and safety inspectors in before hand. All of these little things added up in the end to £1,500.

If people had their head screwed on in Whitehall, then we wouldn't be having this debate..

Therefore, wouldn't keeping the Reds at Scampton save money!

Rumour has it that a move has been totted up and is in the billions, with new hangars, buildings etc.. plus the fuel that is needed to get to and from Scampton.

Dave

The Sea Harrier FA2 was equipped with overall decent kit ( GPS, link etc ) about 5 seconds before it was binned !

New - build Seajets, or Harrier 2+ with modern BVR radar /weapons, IRST & AIM9X / ASRAAM etc should be more than enough to knobble anything, plus a good A-G capability with Sniper etc ?

Couldn't agree more with Poose. Some plonker re-re-restarted this tiresome debate in the DT by saying that the RAF should be binned and now everyone else is jumping in and proposing the end of every other Service. Why not let each Service do what it's best at in/on its chosen medium? The end. :*

assuming it was possible to navalise typhoon, givien the cost of redesign, flight test, trials etc, how would she stack up against rafale.
or, given the hornet is available, a few F18Gs as well.
oooh, now yer talking!!!!

Mr Fish, provided navalising didn't degrade the Tiffy there would be no contest. As I said 3: against Rafaele and I think 2:1 on the Hornet.

I will have to put my thinking cap on and remember where I read it.

Pontious

"The study which was recent did not, again IIRC, include JSF but if it had it would presumably be like including Harrier in the fight evaluation."

"Mr Fish, provided navalising didn't degrade the Tiffy there would be no contest"

You may be correct, but you have put forward no evidence for this whatsoever.

YD,

I must agree with MM that this thread starts with a false premise - that Typhoon can be navalised.

If you mean could it recover to and launch from a carrier reliably, the honest answer is that it can't. Not now, not ever, not at a cost and risk that our defence budget can stand. And even if it were, for some benighted reason, made to happen, the performance of the resulting aircraft would be a huge disappointment.

It's never been 'tested' and the navalized variant has never been 'designed'. Trust me (and others) on this.

Happy to converse via PM if you wish - I've posted plenty on this subject before - do a search, take a look and come back to me if I can help more.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

just a question, could the V22 Osprey be converted for AEW or are there any plans to do so? that way there would be no need for a cat to be fitted to the carriers so not spending more money on them.


Just on another note, I'm sure Im not the only one getting sick of the in fighting between the services on doing away with one service or another. I have never served and I would have thought the Admirals, Air Vice Marshalls etc would have more knowledge than me,

But looking at the bigger picture, perhaps we should be fighting the Treasury not ourselves!!!!!!

Duncan

Pontius Navigator,

Could well have been the DERA study into the Eurofighter's BVR capability

Eurofighter Technology and Performance

Cyclone, thank you. The figures match although the presentation is different. I guess that it was the same source albeit different article.

Tourist, I accept your apologies.

Pontious.

Assuming you are being obtuse rather than just irritating,

That study has no JSF in it, so how can that answer the "Which, the JSF, or the EF, if flown as part of the carrier air wing, would be the more capable airframe for ground attack, and defending the airspace?" question that was asked by Yeoman.

You have presented figures for various carrier aircraft, but dismissed the JSF with a silly harrier comparison.

YD,

accepting that marinised Typhoon is not a reality, I think there are still quite a few reasons why this really comparing apples with oranges.

Who are you fighting? What do you want to do? JSF is stealthy and can carry a small bombload against a very high threat. It can also carry a slightly bigger weaponload if it sacrifices stealth, but that means it doesn't go very far at all. Typhoon carries much more, further, but probably won't do as well against a very sophisticated enemy. I would venture to suggest that our nation's air capability would be well served by having a mix of the two types.

As for what you fly off the carrier, it's only going to be a very small part of the combat power in any significant op; having carriers is probably more about the ability to put them somewhere to make a statement than exactly what you can do with the aircraft on them.